"U.S. weapons sold to Saudi Arabia have been misused repeatedly in airstrikes on civilians and civilian objects, which are the leading cause of civilian casualties in the conflict and have destroyed Yemen's vital infrastructure. This destruction of infrastructure has exacerbated the world's largest hunger crisis in which 8.4 million civilians are on the brink of starvation and created the conditions necessary for the largest cholera outbreak ever documented in modern history," they state.

The Senate could vote Monday to end America’s role in bombing & starving in Yemen. Call your senators at 1-833-STOP-WAR to demand they vote YES on SJRes54.

Counting the pork-amendment- and cloture-elements, the whole population could die by the time the Senate could act on anything. Anyhow, the evil republicans might bring up the subject of the USS Cole, thus more gridlock.

Jim wrote:Counting the pork-amendment- and cloture-elements, the whole population could die by the time the Senate could act on anything. Anyhow, the evil republicans might bring up the subject of the USS Cole, thus more gridlock.

President should act on his own since the Congress has not authorized this war. The trouble is the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) is making a killing on all the arms, fighters, etc.

Jim wrote:Counting the pork-amendment- and cloture-elements, the whole population could die by the time the Senate could act on anything. Anyhow, the evil republicans might bring up the subject of the USS Cole, thus more gridlock.

President should act on his own since the Congress has not authorized this war. The trouble is the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) is making a killing on all the arms, fighters, etc.

Obama did that regarding Libya, brought about the murder of thousands, destroyed the government and lay waste the land. So you want Trump to do the same in Yemen? Sick!

Jim wrote:Counting the pork-amendment- and cloture-elements, the whole population could die by the time the Senate could act on anything. Anyhow, the evil republicans might bring up the subject of the USS Cole, thus more gridlock.

President should act on his own since the Congress has not authorized this war. The trouble is the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) is making a killing on all the arms, fighters, etc.

Obama did that regarding Libya, brought about the murder of thousands, destroyed the government and lay waste the land. So you want Trump to do the same in Yemen? Sick!

Yeah. Those evil Democrats might have brought up Lockerbee, or Reagan's attacks on Libya.

Jim wrote:Counting the pork-amendment- and cloture-elements, the whole population could die by the time the Senate could act on anything. Anyhow, the evil republicans might bring up the subject of the USS Cole, thus more gridlock.

President should act on his own since the Congress has not authorized this war. The trouble is the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) is making a killing on all the arms, fighters, etc.

Obama did that regarding Libya, brought about the murder of thousands, destroyed the government and lay waste the land. So you want Trump to do the same in Yemen? Sick!

You misunderstand me (I think). Trump ought to withdraw from assisting the Saudi’s plummeting of Yemen. I had not realized it, but the House (at least) has asked him to do so in a non-binding resolution by a 366 - 30 margin.

So far, the conflict has claimed more than 13,500 lives, with more than 900,000 suffering from cholera. Roughly 20 million Yemenis need humanitarian assistance to meet basic needs — including food and water — out of a prewar population of 28 million.

K: Are you supporting the Saudis in what is essentially a Yemenese civil war? There's no civil war in Yemen. There was until Saleh quit his dictatorship and quit the government. Obama told him to do so back in the glorious April Uprising days but that's not why he left, although he may have thought the paper-tiger would actually send help to the insurrectionists (like in Syria...remember the red lines). The Big O decimated Libya, which had a population half the size of the Big Apple's (or something like that) but only 76,000 troops, which could have been annihilated by the NYC Police Department. The “war” in Yemen is strictly religious, if Islam can be called a religion—the Sunnis vs. the Shiites, a minority. The fat princes back the Sunnis (and the U.S., as in Iraq, Syria, Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Shiites can hope for help from the Iranian ayatollah, if any. So...Muslims are killing Muslims, with an occasional missionary thrown in.

Jim wrote:K: Are you supporting the Saudis in what is essentially a Yemenese civil war? There's no civil war in Yemen. There was until Saleh quit his dictatorship and quit the government. Obama told him to do so back in the glorious April Uprising days but that's not why he left, although he may have thought the paper-tiger would actually send help to the insurrectionists (like in Syria...remember the red lines). The Big O decimated Libya, .....

Saleh did quit in 2011 (April Spring) and the ongoing civil wars actually has been more or less continuous until the present time Yemeni Civil War

I find no reference saying the Big O (neither Obama or Oscar Robertson) had anything to do with Saleh quitting, but Obama has up the military supplies to the Saudis.

Trump has said we have wasted >$5T in the Middle East - I agree. But he is not moving to end any of our interventions -just rhetoric (it plays well). The results as of this time in Yemen:

So far, the conflict has claimed more than 13,500 lives, with more than 900,000 suffering from cholera. Roughly 20 million Yemenis need humanitarian assistance to meet basic needs — including food and water — out of a prewar population of 28 million.

Notwithstanding Jim's hyper-exaggeration of Obama's involvement in the Middle East, the Saudis have a lot to do with what happens on the Arabian peninsula. I have a hard time buying the argument that "US Interests" require the kind of military and financial support that has involved us in so many conflicts in the region. That includes Israel.

Sandy wrote:Notwithstanding Jim's hyper-exaggeration of Obama's involvement in the Middle East, the Saudis have a lot to do with what happens on the Arabian peninsula. I have a hard time buying the argument that "US Interests" require the kind of military and financial support that has involved us in so many conflicts in the region. That includes Israel.

I have to agree, Sandy. We have poured American treasure, American lives, and American arms into this region on the assumption we will somehow make all things better for them and for us. We seem in more quagmires that get us nowhere and solve nothing. Sounds like a list of now-honored former Presidents in their rhetoric and hidden support for another war, Vietnam (Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon. More American aid, arms, and troops are always our answer. As the old folk song asked, "When will we ever learn?"

"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

Sandy wrote:Notwithstanding Jim's hyper-exaggeration of Obama's involvement in the Middle East, the Saudis have a lot to do with what happens on the Arabian peninsula. I have a hard time buying the argument that "US Interests" require the kind of military and financial support that has involved us in so many conflicts in the region. That includes Israel.

Agreed, except Obama has increased Middle East involvement term of the number of countries we had/have military involvement in. Bush started it and Jim seems to downplay that.

Last edited by KeithE on Tue Mar 13, 2018 8:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sandy wrote:Notwithstanding Jim's hyper-exaggeration of Obama's involvement in the Middle East, the Saudis have a lot to do with what happens on the Arabian peninsula. I have a hard time buying the argument that "US Interests" require the kind of military and financial support that has involved us in so many conflicts in the region. That includes Israel.

I have to agree, Sandy. We have poured American treasure, American lives, and American arms into this region on the assumption we will somehow make all things better for them and for us. We seem in more quagmires that get us nowhere and solve nothing. Sounds like a list of now-honored former Presidents in their rhetoric and hidden support for another war, Vietnam (Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon. More American aid, arms, and troops are always our answer. As the old folk song asked, "When will we ever learn?"